The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1887-10-12
HIS PENSION RECORD.
What President Cleveland Has
Done Compared With 9th
erS.

erS.
GErTrsBURG, Oct. Hon. Edward Nc
Pherson has written the following lette
to Senator Allison Of Iowa:
GErTYsBURss, Pa, Oct. 4, 1887.
HoS. WILLIAM B. ALLISON, Dubuque, La
My DEAR srR: The statement" Il
which you ask my attention, respecting
President Cleveland's official record OF
Union soldiers" copied from the Nation
al Iiee, Washington, ID. c. weekly pa
per, bears the marks of preparation for &
purpose. That purpose Is to show that
the Cleveland administration is more en-,
titled 10 the respect and confidence of the
Union soldiery of the country thar
the administration of either Grant OF
/ Hayes or Arthur il seeks 10 make the
impression that Cleveland has been more
/ liberal and more just to the soldiery than
/ either of his predecessors. And it claims
in terms, that Cleveland has approved
seventy-seven more private bills than
Grant and Hayes combined, and III
more than Arthur.
The statement is false both its asser-
tions and its suggestions
/ First. As 10 its assertions The pen
sion story of the Forty ninth Congress is
I this:
Pension bills passed in the two sessions $40
I Bills approved by Cleveland ...........-.. ttS
Bills vetoed by Cleveland ........... l2i
/ Bills became laws by lapse of time
without Cleveland sapproval............ 156
Bill pocketed by Cleveland......-.....-
lotai-.---..---.----...-... ....----..---.- S49
of the bills passed ~ were in the first
session Of that Congress and 202 in the
second session.
OF the bills vetoed l0l were in the first
session and % in the second.
The pocketedr bill was in the first
session.
make this table from the Corgrsssioa-
al Record, the United States statutes and
( other data, and believe the figures to be
exactly correct
The truth. therefore, is that President
Cleveland approved" about two-thirds
of the bills passed, vetoed over one
eighth and -dodged as to the remainder.
Second. As to the suggestions of the
statement Its purpose is to contrast the
Grant, Hayes and Arthur records with
CleYeland's TO the advantage of the latter
Now, what are the facts about those ad-
ministrations ?
OF the 1913 pension bills passed under
the Grant administration Grant vetoed
eight-two because the claimants names
were then on the pension roll another
because the clause in the act about the
minor children of the soldier had no
meaning three were vetoed because the
names Of the claimants We're borne on
the army rolls as tleserters another, be-
cause the name Of the pensioner was not
correctly given, and last because the sold
ier's company was not correctly given.
He signed 4S5. This is Grants record on
pension vetoes.
What is Hayes and Arthur's record
Under Hayes 303 private pension bills
were passed. He approved them ALL
Under Arthur 736 private pension bills
were passed by Congress. He approved
them ALL
Cleveland's approvals We're but 66s out
of $40 passed, and are thus I20 less than
Grants and Hayes combined and Is less
than Arthur's, out of total I53 greater
than the former and 2l3 greater than the
latter.
The contrast is what might have been
expected in advance of investigation
Grant, Hayes and Arthur were actually
engaged in the suppression of the rebell-
ion and were in full personal sympathy
with the armies of the Union Cleve-
lands record as president Is not out of
harmony with his passiveness as a citi-
zen during the struggle.
signed the Widows Increase bill. II is
also true that he signed the Mexican War
Pension bill, which awards service pen
sion as distinguished from disability
pension to the soldiers of that war. But
il is also true that within ten days there
after he vetoed the bill which proposed
application of substantially the same
principle to the soldiers of the army of
the Union. His friends have the floor to
align that extraordinary discrimination
against the Union soldiers with this ex-
traordinary pretensioD of frier lship for
them.
1t is part of the sane programme to
claim also, that at this date there are
more Union soldiers in til Government
service than at any previous period. THIS
ought to be true, considering the laws in
herited by this administration from its
predecessors distinctly direct that prefer
ence shall always be given, other things
being equal, to the honorably discharged
Union soldiers. If it be not true, this
Administration must have steadily viola
ted the law. But in view of the proved
misstatements touching pension bills,
and of what is known concern ing the
methods adopted in filling up those
classes of appointments 10 which the Civ
il Service law was construed not to apply
and as to which, therefore, there was
held TO be no limit to the discretion of
the appointing power am warranted in
saying that until this last claim be clearly
proved by published lists of removals
and appointments made, it must suffer
from the discredit thrown upon its twin.
Undoubtedly the Pension Office is do
ing a great deal of work Congress inten-
ded that it should, when the additional
agents and clerks literally given that of
fee TO meet the new and increasing de-
mands left its Chief without excuse for
delays Had the Commissioner of PEN
sions been less vigorous in administration
he would have been simply derelict to
duty. But that fact does not hide from
the public the other fact that while he
has been granting many pensions to Tn
ion soldiers, and widely advertising it,
his own immediate Chief and indeed the
whole Administration have been engag
II